Re: Mmd-p.t passage regarding Kc 1 (1 of 3)

Hi Jim,

Thanks very much for the context. Now the passage in question makes much better
sense. You are of course right that the first compound must be a tatpurusa, i.
e. "producing/forming words from letters".



What is the overall meaning of the passage then? Is it "Why bother taking words
apart [i. e. analyzing them into their aksara components, letters, roots, stems,
inflections, etc. and then putting them back together again] when they are
already perfect [as wholes], since they're buddhavacana?"

Thanks,

Bryan



________________________________
From: Jim Anderson <jimanderson_on@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 9:44:05 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Mmd-p.t passage regarding Kc 1 (1 of 3)

  
Hi Bryan

<< I am missing the overall context so you're in the best position to judge
about what the word nipphaadana means here. The passage seems to be saying,
"Why bother analyzing/taking apart/finding a derivation of,  the Buddha's
words as they're already perfect and hearing them is enough to achieve
awakening?".

Obviously the whole purport of the passage turns on what this word means as
it's used (in various forms) six times in the passage. The primary meaning
of the root  ni.spad is definitely  "to produce" or "accomplish" or "bring
forth", but what does that mean in this context? "nipphanna" has the meaning
of "perfected".Is the passage saying "one can't perfect what is already
perfect?" >>

Thanks for this. I would like to give some quotes which I think will help us
better understand the context. I'm going to start with the third line of the
second intrroductory verse at the beginning of Kaccāyana's grammar:

atthañca akkharapadesu amohabhāvā.

"and (the wise obtain) the meaning by non-confusion about letters and
words."

Now consider the following question and answer at Mmd p. 7 (ad Kc 1):

. . . akkharapadāmohabhāvesu kataraṃ paṭhamaṃ sampādetabbanti cintāyaṃ
padāmohabhāvassa akkharāmohabhāvamīlakattā paṭhamaṃ taṃmūlakāraṇabhūtaṃ
akkharakosallaṃ sampādetabbanti dassento, . . .
[note: akkharāmohabhāvo = akkharakosallaṃ; padāmohabhāvo = padakosallaṃ]

. . .(and), with regards to the thought: "which one---non-confusion about
letters or non-confusion about words---should be accomplished first ?",
showing that, because of the root condition of non-confusion about letters
for non-confusion about words, "competence in letters, being the root-cause
of this, should be accomplished first";. . .

In part of the ṭīkā on the above we find a question:

akkharāmohabhāvamūlakattāti etthaca kasmā akkharaṃ mūlaṃ nāma || Mmd-pṭ
43,11 ||

"Because of the root condition of non-confusion about letters" --- and why
in the aforementioned is the letter called the root?

The answer is:

akkharehi padasambhavato || vuttaṃ hi byañjanasamuccayo tadatthajotako
padanti || tasmā padaṃ nipphādetukāmena tāva akkharakosallaṃ nipphādetvā
padanipphādanabyāpārābhiyogo karaṇīyo || Mmd-pṭ 43,12-4 ||

Because of the word's origin from letters. For it is said that a word is a
combination of letters showing its meaning, therefore, attention to the work
of producing a word should be done by one desirous of producing a word,
after having first established competence in letters.

The PED entry for "sambhava" also includes "birth, _production_" in the
definition. Instead of "producing","forming" might be an alternative choice
(cf. word-formation, a section in many grammars).

After commenting on the Mmd paragraph given in part above, there follows
an interpretative paraphrasing (yojanā) of the paragraph which is then
followed by the passage I posted yesterday.

Best wishes,
Jim






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]